1. The second respondent applied for a temporary permit on the route Changancherry-Ponthapuzha, a distance of 25 miles. The application was granted by the Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 13 91965 (Ex. P-2). The petitioner challenges the validity of this order mainly on three grounds: (1) that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit as applications for pucca permit to operate in the route were pending on the date when the grant was made, (2) that the order of the Regional Transport Authority does not indicate the reasons which prompted the grant, and (3) that the permit was issued within one month of Ex. P-2 order and that was is violation of the provisions of R.177 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules.

2. As regards the first point it was urged by counsel for the petitioner that on 191965 one P. P. Philip had applied for a pucca permit, evidenced by Ex. R-7, in the route and therefore under the first proviso to S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the permit.

But it is not clear that the application was for a permit in the route. The Regional Transport Authority had